Welcome Anonymous !

This forum is intended to give the members of the ShiningWorld community a place to meet and discuss Vedanta among themselves. We do not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed here--unless they are made by one of our endorsed teachers--so please take advice and / or teaching from another member of the forum at your own risk. If you feel you have a question that is not being adequately answered in this forum, please contact one of our endorsed teachers directly.

CHAPTER II: KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

How Do I Get Free?, Definition of Duality – Subject and Object, What Is Freedom?, Paths Don’t Work, I Want Self-KnowledgeEnlightenment Myths, No Mind, Blank Mind, Empty Mind, Stopped Mind, No Ego, Ego Death, Nirvana, The Now, Experience of Oneness,Transcendental State, Fourth State, Enlightenment as Eternal Bliss,Enlightenment Is Not a Special Status.

From what I have seen from most "lightenment" teachings is that something needs to happen, or change to "get" hold of the self experience. Some people say ego death is the way, others say the mind itself is the problem and it needs to stop, or be stilled or stopped and that in itself is enlightenment. But like Swamiji says in his Tattva Bodha meditation course he learned from Swami Dayananda Swaraswati, none of those things in and of themselves constitute enlightenment. The most we can do with such notions is use them appropriately in a controlled habit, for example, a meditation habit, and the yoga's presented in the Geeta in order to get the mind prepared, or "condition" the mind (if you prefer) to participate in long stretches of contemplation on the contemplator so we can learn to extract the insight and assimilate said insight (understanding) into the intellect, instead of these "immature" notoions of getting all high on these bliss experiences but not having the wherwithall or methodology (means of knowledge) to properly look at what is going on.

Serious contemplators don't go to Mooji. Ok , that's a very pompous generalisation calon you naughty boy, but I promise only use it for brevity to communicate a scenario. People are looking for spiritual experiences and are trying to make those permanent. But this will never happen, cos what needs to happen is to get a clear understanding of who the meditator really is and then integrate that understanding correctly so that when the fickle shakti in samsara inevitably changes, the knowledge does not go down the toilet with it. It's hard and fast knowledge of the correct pointers for inquiry are used. The "bliss" is not an experience of bliss perse, bliss in Vedanta terminology is just rock solid conviction that you are ok no matter what life throws at you.

The Santa Claus analogy is pointing to beliefs that keep the mind extroverting looking for itself in experiences. Direct knowledge is not experience because experience is conditioned, it's also fickle and unreliable and is interpretive. But using Direct knowledge CAN reveal the self as an experience and alter experience. So the thing is to chase the knowledge first and that may or may not trigger experience of what's really going on. Direct knowledge is the knowledge of the Upanishads that has all the "human being" purified out of it using a scientific peer tested (if you like that analogy) method of making it reliable as a statement that is true for all people that can be verified by all people without any interpretive distortions messing it up. It's like saying sugar is always sweet. No human being can argue with that because it is truth, no interpretations can alter the fact sugar is sweet, it's irrefutable. Vedanta is revealed knowledge brought to us through the years by rigourous testing in a very scientific way, it's not experiential, it's the one truth that all human beings are capable of realizing (if qualified) because it's true for all people.

Let's continue to slog this one out! For me a its very interesting topic even if I fail miserably to provide any clarity, it's all good and thoroughly enjoyable!

Instead of thinking that you are a separate person inside a world (a personality) rubbing up against other personalities, you actually become aware of the fact that there is really only one being because the "knowledge prompted you" to objectify the body and mind as insentient objects. So what is left when all apparent bodies and minds are relegated to not self?

What is REVEALED in the mind of the sattvic jiva is the reality that there is only ONE sentience here. Bhraman, apparently looking through the eyes and minds of many jivas (Atman).

You now interpret life as the actionless awareness, that you cannot possibly be the doer, or anyone else is a doer (really there is no others because Bhraman with three bodies is all there really is, the differences are only apparent), Ishvara (the Gunas and vasanas) are the doer, you are the watcher, the Knower of the objects. There is only you, Bhraman, masquerading as many objects. There is no difference between the Atma in you and the Bhraman that is the substrate (the ground of being). That's the vision of non duality inside the mind, the mind just recalibrates to this perspective and when it stops believing in the old perspective then that's what Vedanta calls hard and fast knowledge.

It's a shift in perspective that the Upanishads sort of push us into to inquiring in that direction. The revelation happens inside the mind, we need thoughts to understand how reality is, without thought then how can understanding take place? So it's a matter of "how" one thinks, rather than just not thinking. Atma cannot be seen, it is the seer, but once you know you are the seer and not the bodymindsensecomplex then the intellect RECORDS this understanding. You literally create a binding vasanas for being Atama instead of Bob.

No other enlightenenment teaching has this line of inquiry so the students of other teachings are all left with their own versions of what enlightenment seems like to them shaped by their own jivas understanding (experiential "only" enlightenment). If they are lucky they might realize what the paishads are saying. But it's highly unlikely.

I hope this one is clearer?

Last edited by calonxy98 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Finally getting to your start up-post for the 2nd Chapter discussion. Actually I do not know how to access that post anymore now that the posts at the top of the forum have "pushed it out". I remember Andrews's response which has many comments that I would echo. Basically, the distinction helped stop the disappointment that was felt deep down in failing to consistently have the special experience necessary for being who I am. The simple and powerful example of the optical illusion of apparently unequal parallel line lengths that measured exactly equal was a direct experience of the illusory nature of experience.

I chased the experience of connecting to the great Self referenced in the Vedantic scriptures. Eventually stopped because of basically feeling no more free and lighter,despite all the sadhana.

I do not think I have any remaining doubts now about the vedantic description of experience. I do have questions still of how to properly speak about direct v. indirect knowledge, and in fact about what we mean by the word "experience" in all its possible contexts. I just wrote a post to Arlindo and then one to Calon with some of those doubts.

The practical effects in my everyday life was very well expressed by your own answering post, less stress, enjoying the ananda that comes with self-knowledge, and a contentment with enjoying the simple pleasures of everyday living.

Finally,there had been times when the practice of discriminating between the subject and object, has felt like a cognitive dissonance, but that has matured now the discrimination is most often felt as a relief.

That's it for now. Thanks for your post and the opportunity it provided.

Bob wrote: Basically, the distinction helped stop the disappointment that was felt deep down in failing to consistently have the special experience necessary for being who I am.

I love this and I think most of us Vedantins can relate to it. How insane to need a special experience to be who you are .

For accessing the forum, you can scroll down to BOARD INDEX and then scroll down to the different sections. This discussion is under " Chapter II: Knowledge and Experience".Most of the other posts are under "GENERAL DISCUSSION". Also, feel free to start a topic thread anytime under any of the sections.

Nice posts, Calon. Whether it's your name or not, we've christened you that now .

Calom wrote: ..using a scientific peer tested (if you like that analogy) method of making it reliable as a statement that is true for all people that can be verified by all people without any interpretive distortions messing it up. It's like saying sugar is always sweet. No human being can argue with that because it is truth, no interpretations can alter the fact sugar is sweet, it's irrefutable.

Nicely said. I just wanted to add, that not only is it irrefutable, but the truth (satchitananda) is also utterly simple and obvious.

To me, this means while we have the utmost and deepest respect for our Gurus, teachers, scriptures, traditions we don't have to be beholden to them for having special mystical powers, visions, and whatnot. Simply put, they know they are the self, we know we are the self.

Vedanta not only demystifies enlightenment but also takes away the need for us to be acolytes to our teachers. This is a welcome relief for those of use who do like peer-reviewed scientific methodology (i.e., what we can verify using our own logic and intellectual capacities) . Probably not so much the Mooji crowd.

Calon, I'm curious about your Vedanta background. Would you be willing to share?

Last edited by Mira on Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Great replies. Thank you Your second post was really clear and I am going to enjoy re-reading that at least a few more times.

In the first post you wrote:The Santa Claus analogy is pointing to beliefs that keep the mind extroverting looking for itself in experiences. Direct knowledge is not experience because experience is conditioned, it's also fickle and unreliable and is interpretive. But using Direct knowledge CAN reveal the self as an experience and alter experience. So the thing is to chase the knowledge first and that may or may not trigger experience of what's really going on. Direct knowledge is the knowledge of the Upanishads that has all the "human being" purified out of it using a scientific peer tested (if you like that analogy) method of making it reliable as a statement that is true for all people that can be verified by all people without any interpretive distortions messing it up. It's like saying sugar is always sweet. No human being can argue with that because it is truth, no interpretations can alter the fact sugar is sweet, it's irrefutable. Vedanta is revealed knowledge brought to us through the years by rigourous testing in a very scientific way, it's not experiential, it's the one truth that all human beings are capable of realizing (if qualified) because it's true for all people.

Bob's comment:

So you maintain that the peer tested scientific analysis of consciousness contained in the Upanishads teaches that direct knowledge cannot arise from experience because experience by its very nature is fickle, unreliable and interpretive. My interpretation and perspective equates direct knowledge with something beyond the mind and intellect, which yours does too since you based it on the Upanishads which is the experience of seers which experience is not fickle, unreliable, or interpretive. The question becomes, should the knowledge based on the Upanishads be considered indirect until it reveals the Self as an experience?

Great replies. Thank you Your second post was really clear and I am going to enjoy re-reading that at least a few more times.

My pleasure

kpitsim wrote:Bob's comment:

So you maintain that the peer tested scientific analysis of consciousness contained in the Upanishads teaches that direct knowledge cannot arise from experience because experience by its very nature is fickle, unreliable and interpretive. My interpretation and perspective equates direct knowledge with something beyond the mind and intellect, which yours does too since you based it on the Upanishads which is the experience of seers which experience is not fickle, unreliable, or interpretive. The question becomes, should the knowledge based on the Upanishads be considered indirect until it reveals the Self as an experience?

What say you?

Bob

Experience for jivas is conditioned by the past. Thats the fickle element, because the jiva is living in "the twilight zone" unaware that the snake its mostly projecting is actually the well-rope, it can be said that experience itself without a properly fleshed out shabda pramana to guide the jivas inquiry is questionable. Enlightenment experiences that are interpreted outside of this inquiry framework that the panishads recommend can be said to be unreliable, EVEN IF they reflected the truth, it doesnt matter much because most jivas wouldnt know what do do with their enlightenment experiences. Most it seems (especially in this day n age of the enlightened guru) "co-opt" their experiences and delude themselves into imagining that the self is some mystical transcendental object that they have the special access to and can teach to others, mostly for a fee!

"I realized the self" is the uneducated, immature vision of nonduality. There is no regulating body of knowledge (apart from Vedanta) to stop the ego creating its own special religious thing out of experiences of what is actually true. Like James points out, once you see through the illusion of duality, you should be ashamed that you have been unaware of what has been true all along. But most people with an enlightenment or two under their belt set up satsangs and start to craft their own special teaching. Which is fair game, but how can anybody really rely on another persons fickle, impermanent and misguided enlightenment experiences to guide their own inquiry? James says you might get there in 40 years inside a clapped out old car, but why not just take a rolls royce and travel to the destination smoothly, and in style, DIRECTLY with no detours, and a proven shubda pramana as a map?

I think this is the essence of what this indirect/direct argument is really pointing to. The Upanishads say "look here" and "look closely" and in doing so with pure intent and desire this will undo your ignorance. You must have faith in the teaching pending your own investigation, and once you understand and know there is no refuting the logic we have pointed you to, you assimilate it because it is knowledge of reality. Once assimilated its then said to be your own knowledge. Easy, for those interested. Clean, crisp and not a scandal in sight. Just a decent, reliable means of knowledge to make you look in the right places.

The Upanishads in my view yes are not beyond experience. They were revealed. A revelation is an experience, but the experiences these "seers" had were irrefutable, absolutely in agreement. My experience of sugar is that it is sweet - that is knowledge, not fickle normal jiva interpretive experience "knowledge". The Upanishads is "handy" experience, experience worth having and passing on. If a rishi tried to sell a notion to the sampradaya that sugar was sour, it would have not got in, because it didnt live upto the scientific standards, it did not match the body of data, it was out of place. Sugar is sour is an opinion, therefore it is not classed as knowledge of reality. Is the knowledge from the Upanishads really beyond mind and intellect? Or is it a case that it is just a reflection of a healthy mind and intellect aligned with truth? The seer is beyond intellect and mind, but knowledge as an object can only be used in its correct vehicle, mind, an intellect.

All this reliable knowledge is not considered "indirect" in Vedanta, because it has not been corrupted by impure interpretations. Nobody made a religious movement out of it, its not a belief system. Indirect knowledge means interpreted "enlightenment" experiences which have been used by the ego for the ego.

Mira wrote:I just wanted to add, that not only is it irrefutable, but the truth (satchitananda) is also utterly simple and obvious.

To me, this means while we have the utmost and deepest respect for our Gurus, teachers, scriptures, traditions we don't have to be beholden to them for having special mystical powers, visions, and whatnot. Simply put, they know they are the self, we know we are the self.

Vedanta not only demystifies enlightenment but also takes away the need for us to be acolytes to our teachers. This is a welcome relief for those of use who do like peer-reviewed scientific methodology (i.e., what we can verify using our own logic and intellectual capacities)

Exactly! Thanks for inspiring my recent answer to Bob. Yes, Vedanta is like "whats the big deal with everything?, were all just the self" And this is no more brilliantly reflected in the relationship between student and teacher, a la Geeta style.

My Vedanta background has been to read James' books. In terms coming from another teaching or teacher I have been spared the ordeal, which is been beneficial for me in trying to understand the Vedanta with James and Swamiji, because with some stupid ideas implanted in the brain Vedanta would take a lot longer to come to terms with, apparently. I still dont understand it properly, but am willing to learn from anybody. If I see a gap in the conversation where I think I can offer some value I'll take that as an opportunity to jump in, because the more I talk about it, the better it lodges in the old grey matter.

Anyway, easy come, easy go!

Thanks for the Vedic baptism. I consider myself lucky to be part taking in such a cool group

I dont claim to know anything, I like you maybe are here just discussing the subject. My opinions and understanding are no way a reflection of the teachers I read, and are limited by my own ignorance, inner well being or lack hereof. The fact that I said Vedanta is the truth is just an opinion of mine. I have no interest in informing anybody of the "truth" whatever the %G&@ that is!

Im just a lowly student who is interested in reading a few books, I have no associations with these people either.

I am also a lowly student .Thanks for letting us know about Swami Advayatmananda Saraswati. His lifestory is so cool and I really like how he has the silicon Valley experience, which might make his life experiences somewhat relatable to those of us similar careers. I look forward to reading and listening more from him.

Glad to see a lot of (friendly) activity here in the study group. Hello Calon - thank you for joining and jumping straight into the study.

Just thought I would add my 2 cents/pence/rupees here. At this juncture, I would recommend visiting the satsang database and typing "indirect" into the search box. It yields a wealth of material from James and other teachers on this topic.

As a succint summary, the impression I get from reviewing some of the satsangs is this:

Indirect knowledge is when a person thinks that the Self is something other than themselves. That it is something that can be seen, perceived or sought. In one exchange, James points this out to the questioner and says something to the effect of "you said arising in awareness" instead of "arising in me".

James adds that indirect knowledge is not the 'kiss of death' because it can be employed in Vedanta as a teaching strategy. However, it is a point at which you dont want to get stuck at because it means no moksha. (It seems that this is kind of a trap that catches Neo people. They are told they dont exist and are not doers but the teachers tell them to seek the self.)

If Vedanta is indeed the path of listening, contemplation, understanding and knowing, rather than the path of action to produce an experience – If Self-knowledge is the hard and fast knowledge; I, the Jiva-atma, in my essential nature beyond time and space, AM the limitless, non-dual self – And since Vedanta says that all knowledge including self-knowledge can only take place in the intellect – what then is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?

I`d like to add my answer to your question as another " lowly student", so please have your red crayon handy !

" Self Knowledge", i`m reading as `Absolute Knowledge. Knowledge of consciousness AS consciousness. No subject/object in this kind of knowledge as consciousness is non-dual...just pure awareness.

What differentiates the two types of knowledge ?

Well, the main difference is that `ordinary` knowledge can be negated. It is not always present and is subject to constant change. It depends on a changeing apparent subject and changeing objects at the same time. The jiva finds itself in this constantly changeing world when Maya is operating.

Secondly, `realizing` the self...knowledge that there is the self, is secondary knowledge. It is knowledge `of` and is dualistic knowledge.

Why is self knowledge called Direct Knowledge ?

Because self knowledge cannot be negated as it is knowledge of you/awareness standing AS awareness. no intervening object or knowledge needed. you are always present and never change. There is only the self and it is self knowing existence. How do you know you exist ?Because you exist. your momma didn`t have to tell you !

What is the difference between ordinary knowledge of phenomenon objects and knowledge of the Self ? What differs self-knowledge from the theoretic/mental/intellectual knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta scriptures? And why Self-knowledge it called direct knowledge?

The difference between knowledge of objects and self-knowledge is that for knowledge of objects to take place one needs 1)awareness or the self 2) the Knowing entity; the intellect or the instrument for knowing objects. 3)an object of knowledge

In the case of self-knowledge,there are only two factors: 1) awareness, and 2) the intellect (the knowing entity) - the very same instrument we use to know objects. An object is not involved in this equation because the Self is not an object of knowledge or experience. But if both types of knowledge occur in the intellect, what is the difference then?

Of course, when we begin the search for the self we always do so in duality (I, the intellect and the self.) In order for the self to be objectified, it needs to be symbolized by a body of ideas and notions we have collected about the “real” self, so that we can try to experience, know and become it. But as we all know, trying to capture the Self within the scoop of the sense organs and the intellect is an exercise in futility… a mental action which achieves no end or goal due to the fact that the self is the subtlest of the subtle.

The search for the self will never end as a mere intellectual knowledge because intellectual knowledge will always depend on duality (an object of knowledge). All spiritual dualists in the world insist to say that they experience the Self and that the Self can only be known by experience. But they fail to understand that what they experience is NOT the Self, but only a subtle object (experience) that they somehow have taken to be the Self. There is a long list of such objects - here goes a few; silence, peace, sentimental love, deep sleep… among a long list of epiphanies and altered states of mind.

For as long the Self is represented by an object of experience the Jiva in contact with such objects will be experiencing only a symbol of the Self. We call it “indirect knowledge”, but it is not correct to call it that way because what they experience is NOT the self, but some qualities they somehow consensually attributed to the self. But as the Upanishads say, the Self is attribute-less.

When we say that the Self is Satchitananda, it does not mean to say that those are the attributes of the Self, but the attributes of “self-knowledge”. Self-knowledge is a phenomenon occurring to human Jivas. Human Jivas are a combination of Awareness/self and matter (five elements + three energies). Once Jiva’s subtle body firmly understands his true essential nature as awareness, Jiva naturally begins enjoying the attributes of pure existence, pure consciousness, and pure limitlessness. Only then, Jiva will live a cool and happy life.

What is the difference? why we say that it happens in the same ordinary intellect? Why we say that it is not intellectual knowledge? Why we say the self-knowledge is direct knowledge?

Although the intellect cannot grasp the Self, we still need a very pure, subtle, and contemplative intellect if this knowledge is meant to occur directly and independently of any object of experience. Moreover, a sattvic mind is a ‘must’ if direct knowledge is meant to became firm & hard & fast (always available.) The intellect is the only instrument of knowledge there is and in order to gain knowledge of things it needs to be well-balanced within its three energies; satya (clarity of mind) Rajas (the necessary energy to discern, determine, discriminate) and tamas (the energy that will keep it grounded to its pursuit rather than engaging on unfounded meaningless fantasies). When the intellect is balanced, creative knowledge occurs.

Self-knowledge also requires the intellect but it occurs in a different way. Once the intellect understands the futility of trying to get, acquire, know or experience the self, it somehow relaxes, and in a fraction of a moment, due to a strong predominance of pure satva, it shifts its standing point from the experiencing/knowing individual entity (Jiva), to the self or pure-awareness. I sometimes refer to it as a moment of pure sattva, pure and clear reflectivity where the self “shines” as itself without any need for a discrete experience to validate, testify or endorse itself.

Self-knowledge is direct knowledge because it is the SELF experiencing and knowing itself - and regardless of the presence or absence of objects. In this sense, self-knowledge is the only direct knowledge there is, because it requires no other factor to reveal, prove or disclose its self-effulgent nature. It is self-evident, self-existing, self-knowing and self-revealing because it ever reveals Itself to Itself. Once the Jiva knows; I am the Self, this knowledge will be always available… never forgotten just like the knowledge you have of being a human and not a dog.

It is not intellectual knowledge because intellectual knowledge depends on the knower and the object of knowledge. Self-knowledge does not depend on any object of experience/knowledge in order to know Itself. Self-knowledge is the very nature of knowledge or existence-consciousness. It is the knowing/conscious principle ever existing in its limitlessness essential nature.

The Intellectual Knowledge of the logic presented by Vedanta does not necessarily translates as self-knowledge. Our methodology is an indirect means to self-knowledge because the self cannot be revealed directly because IT is ever always revealed as oneself - never not present.

The self can only be “revealed” indirectly by the removal or neutralization of self-ignorance (our wrong notions about who and what we are, as well the nature of reality.) The purpose of Vedanta is only to cancel one’s self-ignorance, by gradually presenting/following/analyzing the logic of the scriptures. When the last pieces of wrong notions are removed self-knowledge is more like a shift in one’s sense of Identity; from the limited to the limitless. That simple.

Thank for for that beautifully clear answer to your post for this chapter. To tease things out just a little more: You write that direct self-knowledge only occurs when the intellect relaxes after realizing the futitity of getting, acquiring, or knowing the self, in a moment due to a predominance of pure sattva, the intellect will shift its standpoint to the Self or pure awareness without the need to validate itself through a discrete experience. This is a perfect description of what I have at one time "experienced" or known.

You go on to further elucidate that this self-knowledge is not intellectual knowledge because intellectual knowledge depends on both the intellect and an object of knowledge. And self-knowledge does not depend on any object of knowledge, i.e. A discrete experience. My question is whether one can accurately state that the memory of the adoption of the standpoint of awareness by the intellect, is a form of indirect knowledge.

And what more may be said about the conditions necessary for the intellect to realize it's futility of knowing the self. Can we say that that recognition is what becomes "hard and fast" so that direct self-knowledge is for practical purposes always available and often dropped into so to speak?